Eddie wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0700, Lone Haranguer > <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I was diagnosed with stage 4 nasopharyngeal cancer (throat) in June 07 >>> and underwent 14-hr operation the following month at Oakland Kaiser. I >>> was in IC for 10 days and on SDI for 5 months. I never smoked in my >>> life and doctors said I may have been a victim of second-hand smoke. >>> I now have a feeding tube and will never be able to eat by mouth. My >>> feeding is Nestle's liquid formula Isosourse 1.5 and water three times >>> a day. >>> Although I can retire with a 100% full medical disability I refuse to >>> do so and continue to work full-time as a transit bus operator. (I >>> feed myself during layovers using a two-oz syringe) >>> I was never exposed to cig. smoke (or other carcinogens such as >>> asbestos, etc) at home or work but did grow up when smoking was >>> popular in places like bars, restaurants, supermarkets, doctor's >>> offices, college classes, movies theatres, airplanes, etc. It was >>> hard to get away from smokers when you're 37,000 up in the air. >>> I'm 71 years old now. >>> Eddie in San Jose >> I smoked for 17 years before quitting and I've certainly inhaled my >> share of second hand smoke, exhaust fumes, herbicides and insecticides.
>> But I also avoid large cities and have spent as much time as possible in >> the outdoors, miles away from the emissions of gas and diesel engines. >> LZ > I've read that 12 years after quitting smoking the person's body > health is that of a non-smoker. > The last danger to disappear at 12 years is heart disease. > So it looks like you're going to be ok especially with your life > style.
They told me it took 10 years when I was at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:37:00 -0500, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Wrong. The government has said I can't. In one case, the gummit has >>>>>> banned extended stays in a privately owned CG. In the other, the >>>>>> gummit >>>>>> has banned smoking in privately owned restaurants. How is the first >>>>>> insane, and the second OK? And that's what it has to do with this >>>>>> discussion.
>>>>> Smoking a public health hazard... not to mention disgusting.
>>>>> Hunter
>>>> It has not been conclusively proven to be a health hazard. There are >>>> no >>>> creditable sources supporting this.
>>>> -- >>>> My face is new, my license is expired, and I'm under a doctor's >>>> care!!!!
>>> Considering smokers are affected and die at much higher rates of lung >>> and throat cancer then non smokers and sooner or later will have health >>> problems because of smoking, what more conclusive prove do you require?
>> Hunter drives a diesel and the fumes are also a health hazard. Tell her >> to park the killer. >> LZ >> "In 2002 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a >> Health assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. The objective of >> this assessment was to examine the possible health hazards associated >> with exposure to diesel engine exhaust (DE). The assessment concludes >> that long-term inhalation exposure is likely to pose a lung cancer >> hazard to humans as inferred from epidemiologic and certain animal >> studies."
>> You have that backwards as usual gasoline fumes are killers, diesel does >> not hence its use in places like underground mining or submarines.
> Read the report.... > LZ
> You can present all the reports you wish but the fact is gas exhaust is > poisonous diesel is not.
We're talking lung cancer....not carbon monoxide. Where is the report backing up your claim? LZ
And considering the Europeans with far more diesel powered vehicles on the road should be dying at rates much higher, any explanation why that is not happening?
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:37:00 -0500, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Wrong. The government has said I can't. In one case, the gummit has >>>>>> banned extended stays in a privately owned CG. In the other, the >>>>>> gummit >>>>>> has banned smoking in privately owned restaurants. How is the first >>>>>> insane, and the second OK? And that's what it has to do with this >>>>>> discussion.
>>>>> Smoking a public health hazard... not to mention disgusting.
>>>>> Hunter
>>>> It has not been conclusively proven to be a health hazard. There are >>>> no >>>> creditable sources supporting this.
>>>> -- >>>> My face is new, my license is expired, and I'm under a doctor's >>>> care!!!!
>>> Considering smokers are affected and die at much higher rates of lung >>> and throat cancer then non smokers and sooner or later will have health >>> problems because of smoking, what more conclusive prove do you require?
>> Hunter drives a diesel and the fumes are also a health hazard. Tell her >> to park the killer. >> LZ >> "In 2002 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a >> Health assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. The objective of >> this assessment was to examine the possible health hazards associated >> with exposure to diesel engine exhaust (DE). The assessment concludes >> that long-term inhalation exposure is likely to pose a lung cancer >> hazard to humans as inferred from epidemiologic and certain animal >> studies."
>> You have that backwards as usual gasoline fumes are killers, diesel does >> not hence its use in places like underground mining or submarines.
> Read the report.... > LZ
> You can present all the reports you wish but the fact is gas exhaust is > poisonous diesel is not.
We're talking lung cancer....not carbon monoxide. Where is the report backing up your claim? LZ
Really LZ the army has known this info for the last hundred years; I guess you just did not have high enough security clearance to be partial to this kind of knowledge huh.
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:37:00 -0500, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wrong. The government has said I can't. In one case, the gummit has >>>>>>> banned extended stays in a privately owned CG. In the other, the >>>>>>> gummit >>>>>>> has banned smoking in privately owned restaurants. How is the first >>>>>>> insane, and the second OK? And that's what it has to do with this >>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>> Smoking a public health hazard... not to mention disgusting.
>>>>>> Hunter
>>>>> It has not been conclusively proven to be a health hazard. There >>>>> are no >>>>> creditable sources supporting this.
>>>>> -- >>>>> My face is new, my license is expired, and I'm under a doctor's >>>>> care!!!!
>>>> Considering smokers are affected and die at much higher rates of >>>> lung and throat cancer then non smokers and sooner or later will >>>> have health problems because of smoking, what more conclusive prove >>>> do you require?
>>> Hunter drives a diesel and the fumes are also a health hazard. Tell her >>> to park the killer. >>> LZ >>> "In 2002 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a >>> Health assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. The objective of >>> this assessment was to examine the possible health hazards associated >>> with exposure to diesel engine exhaust (DE). The assessment concludes >>> that long-term inhalation exposure is likely to pose a lung cancer >>> hazard to humans as inferred from epidemiologic and certain animal >>> studies."
>>> You have that backwards as usual gasoline fumes are killers, diesel >>> does not hence its use in places like underground mining or submarines.
>> Read the report.... >> LZ
>> You can present all the reports you wish but the fact is gas exhaust >> is poisonous diesel is not.
> We're talking lung cancer....not carbon monoxide. Where is the report > backing up your claim? > LZ
> And considering the Europeans with far more diesel powered vehicles on > the road should be dying at rates much higher, any explanation why that > is not happening?
They have more experience with diesels and theirs are cleaner burning. I once drove a 1939 Mercedes with a diesel engine. 200,000 miles and it still ran quiet and smooth. Nothing like the rattling stinkers we put on the road. LZ
|
